At the Law Offices of Katie Walsh, we’d like to share our deepest condolences to the families of the 74,188 Americans who have succumbed to COVID-19. We will continue to keep all the infected in the United States – some 1,232,470 – in our thoughts and prayers.

While some headway has been made in containing the coronavirus and flattening the curve through social distancing and sheltering in place, the numbers continue to increase each day exponentially. Nearly four million global citizens (3,784,563) have tested positive for the virus, and 265,294 people have died as of May 7 at 9:54 a.m.

We encourage all Californians and every American to heed the recommendations of public health experts to prevent the spread of the virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have proven effective: regular hand washing and sanitizing, the use of personal protective equipment like face masks, and self-quarantining if you fall ill.

As you are well aware, COVID-19 has altered the trajectory of every person’s life. During the “Great Recession” of 2008, in the worst month, 800,000 Americans lost their jobs. In April 2020, more than 20 million people lost their jobs.

In the last seven-weeks, 33.5 million people have filed for unemployment.

Employment, naturally, is only one of the myriad things that have changed since the coronavirus spread across the United States. Both the criminal justice and juvenile justice system have been impacted too.

Preventing the Spread in Juvenile Halls and Camps

In the criminal justice and juvenile justice system, inmates and detainees are at severe risk of contracting and spreading coronavirus. In the last week of April, at least 82 people housed in Orange County jails and three guards tested positive for COVID-19, according to Patch. As such, there has been a push to release low-level offenders on house arrests to reduce the population.

Zero-dollar bail has been instituted for people charged with misdemeanors and low-level felonies, again to keep the jail census low.

In Los Angeles County, a significant number of youth offenders were released from county-run juvenile halls and camps towards the end of last month, The Chronicle of Social Change reports. However, a significant number of youths remained locked up despite having committed minor infractions. L.A. County District Attorney Jackie Lacey reports that forty-four percent of juveniles who are still detained committed low-level and non-violent offenses—most awaiting a court hearing.

“The fact that we are detaining 44 percent of youth in the juvenile halls for something relatively minor is a misuse of our resources, a violation of the tenets of the juvenile justice system, and, I would argue, the Constitution, too,” said Patricia Soung, the director of youth justice policy with Children’s Defense Fund-California.

The goal of releasing youths was to prevent disease transmission. However, there are fears that the move hasn’t gone far enough. Evidence shows that hundreds of teens charged with “non-serious or minor offenses” remain in custody. The D.A.’s office stated that:

“A juvenile court must decide that the home is a safer place for the minor than further detention.”

Southern California Juvenile Justice Attorney

The Law Offices of Katie Walsh can assist your child or loved one if they were arrested and charged with a crime. Attorney Walsh has the expertise to effectively advocate for your family and help you achieve a favorable outcome. Please reach out to us today for a consultation (714) 351-0178.

Neuroscientists say that the brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25, which makes you wonder why teenagers are considered adults at the age of 18. What’s more, in some cases, teens under 18 years of age are prosecuted as adults in the criminal justice system.

Researchers have long understood that adolescents are impulsive and reckless; they do not think before they act more times than not. The reason teens make rash decisions or break the law isn’t that they are necessarily immoral. Instead, teenagers are impulsive because their prefrontal cortex — the region of the brain that helps stifle impulsive behavior — is not yet fully developed.

Consider that one has to be 21 years old to buy a beer, but can be prosecuted as an adult at the age of 17. In recent years, many states have even raised the age to buy cigarettes to 21; the reason for the change is to allow the prefrontal cortex more time to develop.

The three years added will hopefully enable young people to make more rational decisions regarding nicotine. What’s more, in the twilight of 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration officially changed the federal minimum age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21.

So, if scientists agree that the brain isn’t fully developed until the mid-twenties, then shouldn’t lawmakers amend the age at which a teen can be tried as an adult. California Senator Nancy Skinner thinks so, and she has introduced legislation that would raise the age to 20 for adult prosecution.

Senate Bill 889

Last week, Sen. Skinner introduced Senate Bill 889 Juveniles, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The measure lacks specifics and is currently a placeholder bill. Still, if it is approved and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the legislation would raise the age limit on California’s youth justice system.

“We have 21 as the age for alcohol. We have 21 as the age for tobacco,” said Sen. Skinner. “The research definitely shows that there’s an age difference in things like impulse control.”

In November of 2019, the California Probation Officers Association (CPOA) proposed raising the state’s adult prosecution age to 20, the article reports. Currently, 17-year-olds throughout the state are sent up to the adult court. The CPOAs plan would let people under the age of 20 get rehabilitative services provided by juvenile courts and detention centers. It would also offer more youths the opportunity to have their criminal records sealed.

The Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC), the CPOAs lobbying group, cites research indicating that people as old as 25 share many of the same characteristics as teens, according to the SF Chronicle. The shared traits include peer pressure susceptibility and impulsive behavior.

In the coming months, Senator Skinner, D-Berkeley, will finalize the details of SB 889 by joining forces with juvenile justice reform advocates such as the CPOA and the Commonwealth Juvenile Justice Program.

“This is a reform whose time has come,” said David Steinhart, director of the Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program. “It will improve public safety by putting thousands of California’s youth back into education and on job tracks that are blocked when they are processed as adults.”

Orange County Juvenile Defense Attorney

Juvenile defense attorney Katie Walsh has an extensive amount of experience advocating for youths and their families. As a former juvenile prosecutor at the Lamoreaux Justice Center in the City of Orange, Mrs. Walsh has a unique understanding of the juvenile justice system. Her knowledge and experience can make a significant difference in your child’s future. Please contact us today for a free consultation to discuss the charges your loved one is facing and how Attorney Walsh can help.

The California Assembly and Senate’s fiscal committees met to determine the fate of several criminal justice bills this month. At which time speedy mass-hearings commence, often without public knowledge, to decide the fate of legislation, according to Witness LA. This process allows lawmakers to support or kill bills without having to vote one way or the other.

Bills that would cost the state more than $150,000 go into what is called “suspense files,” the article reports. Each May, committees meet to decide which legislation will move forward or be left behind for the time being. Suspense files are legislative storage containers.

For instance, Assembly Bill 1182 did not get the green light. The bill would have reduced parole time for people convicted of certain crimes and lowered the parole-service requirement time.

Now that the fiscal committees have met, we will discuss some of the criminal justice reforms that passed the hurdle. The bills include Assembly Bills 1076, 680, and 1331; as well as, Senate Bills 114, 555, and 716.

Criminal Justice Bills that Survived

Assembly Bill 1076 automates the expungement process statewide so that people are not affected by records that should have been wiped clean already. According to the article, around two million Californians are eligible to have offenses removed from their records.

Assembly Bill 680 aims to reduce the criminalization of people living with mental illness. The bill also requires all 911 dispatchers to receive mental health intervention training. Assembly Bill 1331 seeks to expand California’s collection of criminal justice system-related data.

Senate Bill 114 seeks to do away with criminal justice system fees, including:

• Probation and diversion
• Collecting restitution orders
• Processing
• Drug testing
• Incarceration
• Medical
• Sealing or expunging criminal records

Senate Bill 555 would reduce commissary and phone call costs for jailed people and their families. Finally, Senate Bill 716 mandates court schools to offer post-secondary classes or vocational courses for juveniles out of high school.

Orange County Juvenile Defense Attorney

If your child is facing legal trouble or school expulsion, then it helps to have a juvenile justice expert to serve as your advocate. Please contact The Law Offices of Katie Walsh for a free consultation. Attorney Walsh is committed to helping young people get to the other side of their difficulties with the least amount of impact on their lives.

In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). Lawmakers wrote the bill to address some of the glaring inconsistencies in approaches to juvenile justice from one state to the next.

Most Americans are unaware that there are more than 56 different juvenile justice systems in the U.S. Each of which is independently operated, and there were no federal standards for care before the JJDPA. Sadly, Congress hasn’t reauthorized the legislation since 2002.

It was beginning to look like 2018 is the year that lawmakers were going to see past their differences and reauthorize the law, but child advocates are no longer sure. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has spent the last four years championing the bill, which gave much hope; however, as Grassley prepares to step down from chairmanship his focus is now on a different criminal justice reform bill, The Huffington Post reports. Before lawmakers break for the holidays, the First Step Act is in the spotlight.

What is the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

The JJDPA, according to ACT4 Juvenile Justice, creates a federal-state partnership for the administration of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention by providing:

• Juvenile justice planning and advisory system, establishing State Advisory Groups (SAGs), spanning all states, territories and the District of Columbia;
• Federal funding for delinquency prevention and improvements in state and local juvenile justice programs; and
• Operation of a federal agency (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)) dedicated to training, technical assistance, model programs, and research and evaluation, to support state and local efforts.

Reauthorizing the JJDPA

Supporters of the JJDPA in Congress are just one vote away from achieving the goal of reauthorization, according to the article. The hang-up rests on two senators disagreeing over whether the JJDPA should be reauthorized together with the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) says that reauthorizing the acts together would reduce Runaway and Homeless Youth Act funding by 23 percent and would fail to protect trafficked youths; Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) sees the matter differently.

“Sen. Grassley has the power of persuasion,” said Sarah Bryer, the president and executive director of the National Juvenile Justice Network. “[He] has the ability to talk to his peers in the Senate and get them to agree to stand down on their issues and stand up for young people.”

Now, it seems that Sen. Grassley has pivoted attention away from juvenile justice and is instead working to enact criminal justice reform. The First Step Act centers around prison reform, reducing sentences, and rehabilitation.

“At this point, he is spending all of his political clout on the First Step Act,” said Rachel Marshall, the federal policy counsel for Campaign for Youth Justice. “And while criminal justice reform is extraordinarily important, it’s not an either/or, in my view.”

We will continue to follow this story as it develops; if the bill doesn’t receive authorization by the time the session ends, lawmakers will have to start over next year. Hopefully, Grassley will manage to resolve the dispute before the end of his tenure.

Orange County Juvenile Defense Attorney

If your child is facing legal challenges or school expulsion, please contact The Law Offices of Katie Walsh. Attorney Walsh’s extensive experience in the field of juvenile justice makes her the perfect candidate to advocate for your family. Call now for a free, confidential consultation, (714) 351-0178.

Just over a year ago we covered a subject that is of particular importance to adolescents caught in the juvenile justice system and their families, Senate Bill 190 (SB-190). At the time, the piece of legislation which, if passed, would prohibit the collection of fees in the juvenile-justice system across the state, was before the California state legislature. In the time since the bill was approved and signed by California Governor Jerry Brown.

Fines and court fees can add up quickly even when the offense in question is relatively minor. Given that most young people do not have a source of income sans what they get from their mother and/or father, the costs of young people breaking the law tend to become the burden of parents. What’s more, debt generated from the past transgressions in one’s youth, don’t disappear upon release; some families continue to chip away at debt long after their son or daughter earn his or her freedom.

Since January 1, 2018, counties across the state have put a stop to collecting juvenile court fees per SB-190; yet, families throughout California are still whittling away at debts accrued before the law came to fruition. San Mateo County Board Supervisor David Canepa, along with former juvenile offender Daniel Casillas, are tirelessly working to end the collection of any juvenile justice fees still owed to the county, The San Mateo Daily Journal reports. Daniel Casillas, who was released from detention just before he turned 18 about four years ago, now serves on the county’s Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission.

Beyond Senate Bill 190

The passing of Senate Bill 190 brought with it a massive relief for thousands of California families moving forward, yet it did not do much for those who already paid their physical debt to society but still owe financially. Since the age of 13, Casillas (21) was arrested more than 20 times for non-serious offenses and a series of probation violations. The arrests and detentions that followed generated incarceration and legal representation fees, according to the article. Years after his release, Daniel’s family are still paying the county.

“Their number one reason for moving here was to provide their kids a better opportunity,” Casillas said. “I think they’ve kind of had to delay their hopes and work extra hard because of financial burden, because of my own adolescence.”

Supervisor Canepa introduced a juvenile court fee write-off for families like the Casillas. If the proposal is approved, it will afford relief to more than 6,000 families owing collectively around $12.6 million.

“When it comes to criminal justice, when you do the crime you have to pay the time,” said Canepa. “But when you pay the time, you shouldn’t be saddled as a juvenile with the debt for the rest of your life.”

Juvenile Defense Attorney

The Law Offices of Katie Walsh specialize in juvenile law. If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges or school expulsion, Attorney Walsh can advocate for you and your family in several ways. Please contact our office for a free consultation.

In certain states, the process of “automatic transfer” or “direct file” is a common occurrence in the juvenile court system. Automatic transfer mandates that minors over a certain age be charged as an adult, if their crimes are considered to be severe, typically for violent offenses. On the other hand, in 15 states prosecutors have discretionary power about which court system to try a minor, juvenile or adult criminal court—a practice which is referred to “direct file.”

It turns out that while direct file is relatively common, some county prosecutors use it more often than others. In California, a new report shows that the filing of adult criminal charges against a minor is far more common in certain California counties and such cases disproportionately involve young people of ethnic descent, Public News Service reports. The research was conducted by three nonprofit organizations.

“What this highlights is that it’s not being used consistently by prosecutors,” said Maureen Washburn, one of the report’s co-authors and a policy analyst for the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, “That it’s being used kind of at the discretion of a prosecutor and doesn’t align with rates of crime that are happening in that county.”

The findings indicate the practice occurs the least in San Francisco county because all minors are allowed a fitness hearing before a juvenile-system judge, according to the article. However, that is not a luxury afforded minors in every county, the California counties with the highest rates of direct file, include:

• Yuba
• Kings
• Sutter
• Napa
• San Joaquin

This November, California citizens will vote on the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. If the bill is passed, it will expand opportunities for good time credits and parole to adult prisoners, potentially shortening the length of inmate’s sentence. Packaged in the bill is a clause that would essentially end the process of direct file for minors throughout the state.

Katie Walsh is an attorney in Orange County, California. Attorney Walsh concentrates her law practice on juvenile defense, criminal defense, and victim’s rights. Contact the Law Offices of Katie Walsh online or at (714) 351-0178.

The United States Supreme Court continues to recognize the inherent differences between juvenile and adult criminal offenders, acknowledging that the former are less psychologically and socially developed—and thus less legally culpable—than the latter.

At the end of last month, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Montgomery v. Louisiana, a case with major implications for inmates sentenced as youth to life without the possibility of parole. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court ruled in Montgomery that juveniles who were previously sentenced to life without the possibility of parole should be granted a new sentencing or parole hearing.

In 2012, the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that it was unconstitutional to automatically sentence a juvenile convicted of homicide to life-without-parole. This decision essentially meant that any individual in prison who had been so sentenced was being held in violation of his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

This legal predicament left many states wondering what to do about inmates who fit this criteria. Should they have to grant them a new sentencing or parole hearing? Was, in other words, the Miller decision retroactive to old cases or did only apply to new cases moving forward?

The Montgomery case answered just this question: juveniles who had previously been automatically sentenced to life-without-parole must be afforded a new sentencing or parole hearing. However, it does not mean that those inmates will be given a new sentence or granted parole, though that may be a possibility. Rather, Montgomery simply requires a new sentencing or parole hearing.

Since the Miller decision in 2012, California has already taken steps to address how it will address juvenile offenders sentenced to life-without-parole. In 2013, the state legislature passed a bill that permits an inmate so sentenced as a juvenile to a parole review after 15 years and release after 20 years.

This bill, titled “California Fair Sentencing for Youth,” required the state to give a new sentencing hearing to any inmate who was 18 years old or younger at the time they were convicted of a crime and sentenced to life-without-parole.

In light of Miller and last month’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the legal landscape of juvenile justice has changed dramatically for those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as juveniles.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will eventually rule that all life sentences for crimes committed by juveniles are unconstitutional per se.

Katie Walsh is a defense attorney in Orange County, California. Attorney Walsh’s practice focuses on juvenile law, criminal defense, and victim’s rights.

Contact the Law Office of Katie Walsh at (714) 351-0178 or online.